Let me help you reconcile these points:

One is both common sense and likely to lead to our children and descendants having the chance to live happily in their time.

The other is narcissitic infanticide, sacrificing the unborn's chance for peace to the current individual's cowardly failure to accept the obvious realities of existence.

Think of it like all those thousands of child rape victims of the Catholic Church: is it better they scream and weep in dark corners so weak housewives can continue to find 'solice' in the Roman policitian with the giant hat? Should jewish & muslim children be forcibly genitally mutiliated for the mental delusions of their parents?

Only a religious or psychotic person would even dare pontificate over how to reconcile these questions.
For the rest of us it's so, so easy: stop wrecking the planet and raping the kids.

I'm pretty sure that was sign language for "I want to eat your face and genitals when I grow up."

>> ^dag:

Yeah, but he is dating a man, right?>> ^00Scud00:
One of the guys does make a good point when he states that if he was gay he would be dating men.



No. The ladyboys in question here think of themselves as female and have always done so. The only thing male about them anymore is their genitals, which in the end isn't as important as some may think. It's how they feel about themselves and how they express themselves which defines their gender. A gay man is a man that is attracted to men, not (just) a penis.

>> ^Murgy:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.

Having read through Metamorphoses, I can honestly say I found far less basic ethical transgressions present than in the Christian Bible. Modern day societal value inconsistencies were about equal between the two books, assuming one accounts for the differences in length.
Now don't get me wrong here, I don't consider myself a literary historian, but when spending a day sick in bed one will find Wikipedia taking them in strange directions.


I agree 100% about the nonequivalence in moral transgressions. My point of comparison between the two was more how they both are cultural milestones whose influence permeate much of human artistic production and in that sense are an important part of adult cultural baggage, but not childhood teaching tools (Ovid perhaps more for the wtf-ishness).

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.


Having read through Metamorphoses, I can honestly say I found far less basic ethical transgressions present than in the Christian Bible. Modern day societal value inconsistencies were about equal between the two books, assuming one accounts for the differences in length.

Now don't get me wrong here, I don't consider myself a literary historian, but when spending a day sick in bed one will find Wikipedia taking them in strange directions.

>> ^hpqp:

The two most popular Bible stories for kids after the baby Jeebus one are the Garden of Eden/Creation story (hello incest) and the Noah and the Flood story (hello incest and full-scale genocide). Am I wrong?
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^hpqp:
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.

Yeah they don't make children read those stories. I'm sure there's one church somewhere that does but everyone I've ever talked to that had a "Churchy" upbringing never heard about that side of the bible. Death yeah, but watch tv today and you get tons of death, so it's not really that big of a deal.



There was never any incest or genocide the way that they tell them. It matters a lot how you present the stories.

The two most popular Bible stories for kids after the baby Jeebus one are the Garden of Eden/Creation story (hello incest) and the Noah and the Flood story (hello incest and full-scale genocide). Am I wrong?
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.

Yeah they don't make children read those stories. I'm sure there's one church somewhere that does but everyone I've ever talked to that had a "Churchy" upbringing never heard about that side of the bible. Death yeah, but watch tv today and you get tons of death, so it's not really that big of a deal.

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.


Yeah they don't make children read those stories. I'm sure there's one church somewhere that does but everyone I've ever talked to that had a "Churchy" upbringing never heard about that side of the bible. Death yeah, but watch tv today and you get tons of death, so it's not really that big of a deal.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.


I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.

Bet his genitals hang down to his knees, but not in a good way.

I'm just saying... If he offers to let you pet his Shar Pei...

My son is intact. There's no good reason to mutilate someone's genitals. I plan on teaching him about condoms, which are far more effective in the prevention of HIV.

Damn, I was hoping to be the first one to comment meaningfully about this subject: seems I came up short (zing!).

I am circumcised. My lady friend and I (who have been together more than five years) have discussed at length (oh! I'm too good) whether I would want a son of mine to be cut as well, so I have mulled this over quite a bit.

Being a nonsuperstitious man (read: nontheist), the only consideration on side of cutting my offspring is that moment in the shower when he is two years old and he asks, "Daddy, why are you different?" (Heading off those who do not yet have children in the close family, I should say that bathing at such a young age with the older crew is not uncommon no matter what your culture.) For a son to see that he is truly, physically different from his old man is probably quite a shock.

Here is the bottom line: I have ZERO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER telling my son that I was cut because of a superstition; that my penis looks the way it does because of a superstitious bond between my parents and their imaginary friend. I am in fact quite excited to tell my young man that there was a time when this kind of thing was necessary so that people could feel closer to whatever it was they thought made the universe. I am excited because it will engender in him the same cynicism that took me more than a decade to discover.

My own father was born and raised Catholic and went to Jesuit schools from pre-K to law school. As Jesus-loving and God-fearing as he was on the surface, he made sure to let me know the barbarism is barbarism. To imagine that genital mutilation is part of a legitimate religious commitment is so far out of whack with current legal and cultural norms. Fuck circumcision and all its superstitious implications.

Your Honor, due to the negligently designed and built step, I tripped causing me to spill my hot McDonald's coffee on my genitals causing pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and PTSD

Ya I sorta wondered about the age of this clip as well but it still shows the TSA asserting their authority for no other reason than to make themselves look important. I mean really this kid was flagged as a threat? Seriously come on! He had an obvious broken leg and needed the wheelchair to move around.

What do they really suspect terrorist are using 5 year olds in bomb laden wheelchairs with fake broken legs to blow up planes it's just plain old abuse of power if you ask me.

>> ^njjh201:

So: the TSA security pantomime is tremendously silly, as Salon's Ask The Pilot and many others have pointed out.
But the toddler in this video is not terrified, he's hungry and slightly grouchy. Notice how when he appears upset, parent reassures him they'll be eating soon?
Notice also how the 'terrified' toddler doesn't scream with fright, cry, and utterly obstruct the TSA agent, as a genuinely terrified child would (ever watched a child of that age who has serious phobia of needles get a shot?)
Notice also how the TSA agent performs his (intrusive, pointless and yes maybe unconstitutional) task sensitively, in a calm and reassuring manner. He is gentle, he gets down to the child's level, he doesn't raise his voice or rush. (In particular I note that he doesn't fondle the child's genitals. I thought that was standard TSA practice?!)
Yes the TSA security pantomime is silly, but so is the right wing claim that investigations such as these amount to child-rape. They plainly don't.
Which leads me to my question: this happened almost two years ago. Why has it only just surfaced?